Can a Monkey Get a Copyright & Issue a Takedown?

An anonymous reader writes "Last week, the Daily Mail published a story about some monkeys in Indonesia who happened upon a camera and took some photos of themselves. The photos are quite cute. However, Techdirt noticed that the photos had copyright notices on them, and started a discussion over who actually held the copyright in question, noting that, if anyone did, the monkeys had the best claim, and certainly not the photographer. Yet, the news agency who claimed copyright issued a takedown to Techdirt! When presented with the point that it's unlikely the news agency could hold a legitimate copyright, the agency told Techdirt it didn't matter. Techdirt claims that using the photos for such a discussion is a clear case of fair use, an argument which has so far been ignored."

Comments

Maybe a million monkeys

[perpenso]

Can a Monkey Get a Copyright & Issue a Takedown?

Maybe a million monkeys could do it, as they do with Shakespeare.

Re:Maybe a million monkeys

[kale77in]

1) Does copyright apply to random generation? The Shakespeare issue captures the essential point... Would the monkeys hold copyright on their text, having produced it by chance?

2) Is intentionality is required for moral rights of art creation? If I'm camping and a rock falls on my camera and somehow causes a photo to be taken, does the rock have the copyright? What if a monkey falls on the camera, with the same effect? What if the monkey tries to eat the camera, with the same effect? What consciousness of the act of creation is required? In this case, the monkeys framed their reflections in the lens, which was a creative act if using a mirror is a creative act. There can't have been any consciousness of others publishing these images; are the 'portraits' thus portraits to us but not to them?

3) Copyright is a human social construct that prevents the exploitation of creativity to the detriment of authors. Does this have any meaning in whatever system of exchange impresses monkeys?

Re:Maybe a million monkeys

[LordLimecat]

3) Copyright is a human social construct that prevents the exploitation of creativity to the detriment of authors. Does this have any meaning in whatever system of exchange impresses monkeys?

This is the most relevant part. Copyright's intention is to encourage works by providing the author with certain privileges. When there is no human author and no intentionality behind it, there is no reason for copyright.

Re:Maybe a million monkeys

[willworkforbeer]

...not to get too technical, but in the industry that's known as one "Michael Bay Script Unit"

Re:Maybe a million monkeys

[jbeaupre]

Shakespeare's works are public domain, which is why monkeys can do it. It might take a million of them to figure out how to do it, but every one of them knows they'll be turned into monkey stew if they try to write anything by J K Rowling. An encyclopedia of her works, they are still debating.

Re:Maybe a million monkeys

[Ol Olsoc]

Copyright is as copyright does. Chance is not in the equation. A human photographer or painter can and often does hold copyright on randomly shot photos. And for a good reason. At what point does randomness stop? If say you set up a camera with method of taking photos of lightning, it will do it. And you hold copyright and can sell that photo as yours. Lightning is very random.

I find this issue interesting in the extreme, esp since copyright is now becoming badly abused. Apparently perpetual copyrights, and shrinking concept of fair use - the legals are involved to the hilt, so now they are going to get involved in this.

First off, those photos are pretty good. Better than many human taken photos. So there is tangible worth. Next we look at what a copyright owner is. Must the holder be human? Where is that defined? Now we move on to the comparative aspects of non-human copyright. Certain animals have been shown to be self aware, and there is no doubt that many animals could learn that there is something happening when they press the shutter on a camera. They can create. Now compare that to say a 3 year old human taking photos, I allowed my son to take photos with my professional camera at that age. An African Gray Parrot for instance is functioning at an intellectual level of around a 4 year old. So were my son's photos not copyrightable? How about an autistic or schizophrenic person?

Re:Maybe a million monkeys

[Adrian Lopez]

Monkees only reproduce works written by others

No kidding. Ninety-nine times out of a hundred, a million monkeys typing on a million typewriters will produce some variation upon Finnegan's Wake.

Re:Maybe a million monkeys

[AK Marc]

Does copyright apply to random generation?

Copyright applies only to creative generation. Random would not count. Logical (i.e. alphabetical listing of people and numbers in phone books) is explicitly not covered by copyright. It does not apply to discoveries (pretty rocks, math, photos taken by monkeys). Many photos are uncopyrightable. A photo of a painting taken to replicate the painting as closely as possible, even if it requires great technical skill for lighting and such, is not a creative work, but an uncopyrightable derivative of the painting. However, in almost all other cases of taking a picture of art, the photo is copyrightable. The assumption is that there was some creativity in picking the location or lighting or such when taking the photo, even if it is just a picture of a random building taken from across the street without actual care or creativity expended in taking the picture.

So, unless there is some creativity required for the creation of the item in question, one may not copyright it. If they argue that the monkeys were creative, then the monkeys would hold the copyright, as the human discovering the monkey picture did not create anything and thus can't hold the copyright to it.

Re:Maybe a million monkeys

[phantomfive]

Claiming copyright on the output of an algorithm (ie, randomly generated numbers) has been tried before. The consensus at the time (not that I looked deeply) seemed to be that the law is vague on the issue, and it might manage to stand up in court.

Re:Maybe a million monkeys

[Surt]

"It was the best of times, it was
  blurst of times."

You stupid monkey!

Re:Maybe a million monkeys

[gnasher719]

Seems to me that if the photographer properly and adequately reimbursed the monkeys then the paper would have purchased said portraits by contract from the monkeys.

You can't form a contract with a monkey. Therefore you cannot get the copyrights for a work created by a monkey. And lastly, a DMCA takedown notice by a person who doesn't have the copyright is a criminal matter.

Re:Maybe a million monkeys

[jimshatt]

The photographer, David Slate, was there with his camera to photograph the monkeys. That's your intentionality right there. It doesn't matter if he shot the photos themselves, used a tripod and a random interval for taking pictures, or used monkeys. I know I'm stretching the glorified tripod analogy, but still...

When I ask a passer-by to take a picture of me (and my family), who owns the copyright? I really don't know.

Re:Maybe a million monkeys

[Pharmboy]

This is the most relevant part. Copyright's intention is to encourage works by providing the author with certain privileges.

You forgot the most important part: Copyright exists to give the creator exclusiverights to profit from the creation in exchange for the public gaining ownership after a fixed period of time. We protect you now, you give it to us later.

The idea that you "own" what you create is an artificial construct, a mutually beneficial social contract, and a point that most corporations don't seem to care about anymore. Disney in particular, wants to buy or create "creative works" and own them forever, yet have society pay to secure that right. That is not a sustainable or justifiable system, and certainly is not what the original intent was.

Derivative works?

[BWJones]

Yeah, but what about derivative works like this: http://www.flickr.com/photos/bwjones/5914210045/ or this: http://www.flickr.com/photos/bwjones/5914755036/

Re:Derivative works?

[PPH]

If you'd have the monkey inserted into a photo of Congress' debate over raising the national debt ceiling, we might not have suspected Photoshop.

Re:Nothing to do with DMCA

[rhook]

Of course it wasn't a DMCA takedown notice, the Daily Mail is based in the UK.

Infinite Monkeys

[retaj]

Would an infinite number of monkeys with an infinite number of cameras still have more fun flinging poo?

Re:Animals Don't Have Rights

[TibbonZero]

And companies. Don't forget companies! They have the same rights as people too!

Re:Seems fair

[bipbop]

I know that if you are the sole possessor of, e.g., a discontinued book, you become the copyright holder of that work.

[citation needed]

Re:Seems fair

[artor3]

I know that if you are the sole possessor of, e.g., a discontinued book, you become the copyright holder of that work.

[citation needed]

The OP is clearly american, and americans are under the belief that their words and actions are law and always right.

[citation needed]

Monkey Business

[thetsguy]

Now this qualifies to be a monkey business

The moneky speaks his mind

[RevWaldo]

And three monkeys sat in a coconut tree
Discussing things as they are said to be
Said one to other now listen, you two
“There’s a certain rumour that just can’t be true
That man descended from our noble race
Why, the very idea is a big disgrace, yea”
No monkey ever deserted his wife
Starved her baby and ruined her life

Yea, the monkey speaks his mind

And you’ve never known a mother monk
To leave her babies with others to bunk
And passed them on from one to another
‘Til they scarcely knew which was their mother
Yea, the monkey speak his mind

And another thing you will never see
A monkey build a fence around a coconut tree
And let all the coconuts go to waste
Forbidding all other monkeys to come and taste
Why, if I put a fence around this tree
Starvation would force you to steal from me

Yea, the monkey speaks his mind

Here’s another thing a monkey won’t do
Go out on a night and get all in a stew
Or use a gun or a club or a knife
And take another monkey’s life
Yes, man descended, the worthless bum
But, brothers, from us he did not come

Yea, the monkey speaks his mind


.